Keiichi Hatakeyama1, Takeshi Nagashima2,3, Akifumi Notsu4, Keiichi Ohshima5, Sumiko Ohnami2, Shumpei Ohnami2, Yuji Shimoda2,3, Akane Naruoka6, Koji Maruyama7, Akira Iizuka8, Tadashi Ashizawa8, Hirotsugu Kenmotsu9, Tohru Mochizuki5, Kenichi Urakami2, Yasuto Akiyama8, Ken Yamaguchi10. 1. Medical Genetics Division, Shizuoka Cancer Center Research Institute, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. k.hatakeyama@scchr.jp. 2. Cancer Diagnostics Research Division, Shizuoka Cancer Center Research Institute, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 3. SRL Inc., Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 163-0409, Japan. 4. Clinical Research Center, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 5. Medical Genetics Division, Shizuoka Cancer Center Research Institute, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 6. Drug Discovery and Development Division, Shizuoka Cancer Center Research Institute, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 7. Experimental Animal Facility, Shizuoka Cancer Center Research Institute, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 8. Immunotheraphy Division, Shizuoka Cancer Center Research Institute, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 9. Division of Genetic Medicine Promotion, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 10. Shizuoka Cancer Center, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mutation analysis using next-generation sequencing highlights the features of tumors with somatic alterations. However, the mutation profile of double cancer remains unclear. Here, we analyzed tumors derived from the same patient using whole exome sequencing (WES) to investigate the coherence of somatic mutations in double cancer. METHODS: First, the tumor mutational burden (TMB) was investigated using WES of 5521 tumor specimens from a Japanese pan-cancer cohort. The frequencies of mutation concordance were then compared in these cancers. Finally, we calculated the expected value of mutational concordance fitting a Poisson distribution to determine the relationship between double and metastatic cancers. RESULTS: In all, 44, 58, and 121 paired samples were diagnosed as double cancer, multifocal lesions (derived from identical tissues), and metastasis, respectively. Our analysis revealed that common somatic mutations were almost entirely absent in double cancer, whereas primary tumors and metastatic foci harbored several identical alterations. Concordance of the mutation profile in the same patient reflects the tumor origin and development, suggesting the potential for identifying double cancer based on common somatic mutations. Furthermore, according to a Poisson distribution, double cancer could be discriminated based on paired samples from the same patient. The probability of double cancer with more than 10 mutations was ≤1 part-per-billion (ppb, 10- 9). In multifocal lesions, 74% of tumor pairs accumulated ≤10 common mutations, implying a difference in tumor origin within identical tissues. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that counting common somatic mutations can indicate the differences in origin between tumors derived from the same patient. Our mutation coherence analysis can thus provide beneficial information for diagnosing double cancer.
BACKGROUND: Mutation analysis using next-generation sequencing highlights the features of tumors with somatic alterations. However, the mutation profile of double cancer remains unclear. Here, we analyzed tumors derived from the same patient using whole exome sequencing (WES) to investigate the coherence of somatic mutations in double cancer. METHODS: First, the tumor mutational burden (TMB) was investigated using WES of 5521 tumor specimens from a Japanese pan-cancer cohort. The frequencies of mutation concordance were then compared in these cancers. Finally, we calculated the expected value of mutational concordance fitting a Poisson distribution to determine the relationship between double and metastatic cancers. RESULTS: In all, 44, 58, and 121 paired samples were diagnosed as double cancer, multifocal lesions (derived from identical tissues), and metastasis, respectively. Our analysis revealed that common somatic mutations were almost entirely absent in double cancer, whereas primary tumors and metastatic foci harbored several identical alterations. Concordance of the mutation profile in the same patient reflects the tumor origin and development, suggesting the potential for identifying double cancer based on common somatic mutations. Furthermore, according to a Poisson distribution, double cancer could be discriminated based on paired samples from the same patient. The probability of double cancer with more than 10 mutations was ≤1 part-per-billion (ppb, 10- 9). In multifocal lesions, 74% of tumor pairs accumulated ≤10 common mutations, implying a difference in tumor origin within identical tissues. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that counting common somatic mutations can indicate the differences in origin between tumors derived from the same patient. Our mutation coherence analysis can thus provide beneficial information for diagnosing double cancer.
Authors: Henry Lee-Six; Sigurgeir Olafsson; Peter Ellis; Robert J Osborne; Mathijs A Sanders; Luiza Moore; Nikitas Georgakopoulos; Franco Torrente; Ayesha Noorani; Martin Goddard; Philip Robinson; Tim H H Coorens; Laura O'Neill; Christopher Alder; Jingwei Wang; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Matthias Zilbauer; Nicholas Coleman; Kourosh Saeb-Parsy; Inigo Martincorena; Peter J Campbell; Michael R Stratton Journal: Nature Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Konstantinos Leventakos; Tobias Peikert; David E Midthun; Julian R Molina; Shanda Blackmon; Francis C Nichols; Yolanda I Garces; Christopher L Hallemeier; Stephen J Murphy; George Vasmatzis; Sarah L Kratz; William P Holland; Charles F Thomas; John J Mullon; K Robert Shen; Stephen D Cassivi; Randolph S Marks; Marie Christine Aubry; Alex A Adjei; Ping Yang; Mark S Allen; Eric S Edell; Dennis Wigle; Aaron S Mansfield Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Willemijne A M E Schrijver; Pier Selenica; Ju Youn Lee; Charlotte K Y Ng; Kathleen A Burke; Salvatore Piscuoglio; Samuel H Berman; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Britta Weigelt; Paul J van Diest; Cathy B Moelans Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Brittany B Campbell; Nicholas Light; David Fabrizio; Matthew Zatzman; Fabio Fuligni; Richard de Borja; Scott Davidson; Melissa Edwards; Julia A Elvin; Karl P Hodel; Walter J Zahurancik; Zucai Suo; Tatiana Lipman; Katharina Wimmer; Christian P Kratz; Daniel C Bowers; Theodore W Laetsch; Gavin P Dunn; Tanner M Johanns; Matthew R Grimmer; Ivan V Smirnov; Valérie Larouche; David Samuel; Annika Bronsema; Michael Osborn; Duncan Stearns; Pichai Raman; Kristina A Cole; Phillip B Storm; Michal Yalon; Enrico Opocher; Gary Mason; Gregory A Thomas; Magnus Sabel; Ben George; David S Ziegler; Scott Lindhorst; Vanan Magimairajan Issai; Shlomi Constantini; Helen Toledano; Ronit Elhasid; Roula Farah; Rina Dvir; Peter Dirks; Annie Huang; Melissa A Galati; Jiil Chung; Vijay Ramaswamy; Meredith S Irwin; Melyssa Aronson; Carol Durno; Michael D Taylor; Gideon Rechavi; John M Maris; Eric Bouffet; Cynthia Hawkins; Joseph F Costello; M Stephen Meyn; Zachary F Pursell; David Malkin; Uri Tabori; Adam Shlien Journal: Cell Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: M B Mogensen; M Rossing; O Østrup; P N Larsen; P J Heiberg Engel; L N Jørgensen; E V Hogdall; J Eriksen; P Ibsen; P Jess; M Grauslund; H J Nielsen; F C Nielsen; B Vainer; K Osterlind Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 4.430